King Khalid International Airport (RUH) in Riyadh is shut down

Saudi authorities have officially extended the complete suspension of flight operations.

Current Operational Status

Saudi Arabia’s General Authority of Civil Aviation (GACA) had to announce an extension of the operational shutdown at RUH to conduct structural safety assessments and repair facility damage. Aviation authorities have notified international carriers that operations are expected to remain halted for the remainder of the working week.

No more flights to and from Riyadh

Over 1,400 flights serving the Kingdom have been cancelled. Major international and regional carriers—including Emirates, Qatar Airways, Gulf Air, Lufthansa, Air India, and IndiGo—have suspended services to Riyadh, with several airlines cancelling scheduled flights through at least October 17.

While King Abdulaziz International Airport in Jeddah (JED) and King Fahd International Airport in Dammam (DMM) remain technically open, they are managing severe ripple delays and cancellations across domestic and Umrah transit routes.

What Caused the Shutdown

The shutdown followed multiple projectile and drone strikes over successive days:

Terminal 4 Damage: On Sunday evening, a projectile directly struck Terminal 4, sparking a fire that required emergency intervention and resulting in casualties.

These followed a devastating attack on Saturday, October 10, which killed at least 12 people and wounded over 300 on airport grounds.

Additional missile interceptions were reported over the capital on Monday evening as the Houthis claimed ongoing targeting of the facility, prompting civil defence to instruct the public to avoid the airport precinct entirely.

Until GACA completes structural remediation and air-defence readiness protocols are re-established, Riyadh’s commercial airspace remains effectively closed to civil traffic.

The United States has not been able to commit to a joint military offensive with Saudi Arabia, despite intense pressure and appeals following the strikes on King Khalid International Airport and regional infrastructure.

Instead, Washington is maintaining an ambivalent, non-committal posture that exemplifies the limits of its security guarantees.

Rhetoric vs. Kinetic Action

When pressed on whether American forces would intervene alongside Saudi coalition airstrikes in Yemen, the White House stated only that the US "may" join, while simultaneously pivoting to emphasise that the Kingdom is capable of handling its defence. Beyond verbal condemnations of the strikes on civilian aviation hubs, the Pentagon has refrained from launching combined offensive operations to dismantle Houthi launch sites.

Force Protection Over Escalation

Rather than entering an offensive air campaign, the official American response has centred on risk mitigation:

US and European embassies issued security alerts advising citizens to avoid King Khalid International Airport and reconsider regional transit.

The US military posture remains focused on defensive force protection for its personnel and remaining regional nodes, rather than dedicating carrier strike aircraft or standoff munitions to an expanded Yemen air war.

Backchannel Pragmatism in Muscat

Washington’s reluctance to greenlight an open-ended bombing campaign stems from its previous encounters with asymmetric attrition. Having seen past air campaigns fail to dislodge mobile launchers or deter the movement's leadership, US planners are wary of being drawn back into a costly, open-ended regional escalation. Consequently, diplomatic backchannels through Oman remain the primary American mechanism for seeking de-escalation, leaving Riyadh to bear the immediate operational and retaliatory burdens of its offensive strikes alone.

Thought for the day

Consider "Saudi taking a couple of missiles has had more media coverage than the 10-year famine they have inflicted on Yemen."

Isn't the claim substantially accurate? 

Although Saudi Arabia did not single-handedly cause a nationwide famine, its military intervention, air campaign, and restrictions on Yemen’s ports and imports significantly worsened hunger and famine risk.

After intervening in March 2015, coalition airstrikes and fighting damaged farms, markets, roads, hospitals, water systems, and other infrastructure; UN agencies linked these disruptions to Yemen’s slide toward famine risk.

Yemen depended heavily on imported food, fuel, and medicine. Coalition inspections and restrictions—especially after the 2017 tightening of access—delayed supplies and caused fuel shortages that disrupted transport, water pumping, hospitals, and aid distribution.

Houthi authorities, the internationally recognised government, and other armed groups also obstructed aid, imposed checkpoints, restricted movement, diverted resources, damaged infrastructure, and contributed to the economic collapse.

Yemen faced repeated famine threats and catastrophic food insecurity, but it was not uniformly experiencing a formally declared nationwide famine throughout the decade; in 2024, about 17.6 million people were projected to face severe food insecurity.

Hunger resulted from several interacting causes—war, blockade-related restrictions, currency collapse, displacement, lost livelihoods, disease, damaged services, aid shortages, and climate pressures—not food scarcity alone.

Saudi Arabia caused or material worsening of Yemen’s famine crisis is well-supported, though saying Saudi Arabia alone caused a decade-long nationwide famine is too simplistic. The strongest formulation is that the Saudi-led coalition was a major driver of a war-induced humanitarian catastrophe, while responsibility was shared among multiple Yemeni and foreign actors.

The Futility of Defence Expenditure in the Modern Era

In today's interconnected world, where consumer-based economics reigns supreme, the traditional notion of military might as the ultimate guarantor of national security is increasingly being questioned. The vast sums of money poured into defence budgets, the relentless arms race and the development of high-tech weaponry and next-gen fighters are arguably unnecessary and counterproductive.

The US President didn't get a Nobel Peace Prize

The Illusion of Military Supremacy

The notion that military power is the ultimate determinant of victory in interstate conflicts is a relic of a bygone era. While military strength has historically played a significant role in shaping geopolitical landscapes, the dynamics of power have undergone a profound transformation in the contemporary era.

The advent of globalisation, the rise of transnational corporations, and the increasing interdependence of nations have created a scenario where economic and political influence often trumps military might. In this context, pursuing military supremacy through exorbitant defence expenditure is a flawed strategy.

To illustrate, consider a hypothetical arms deal between two countries. One country manufactures a state-of-the-art stealth fighter aircraft with a price tag of $80 million per unit. The manufacturing country needs to secure buyers for these expensive aircraft to sustain its operations and profitability. On the other hand, the purchasing country would have to allocate a substantial budget, exceeding $1 billion, to acquire a squadron of these fighter jets, along with additional maintenance, training, and infrastructure expenses.

The crucial question to consider is: Will this $1 billion investment yield a commensurate return? Any astute taxpayer would argue that investing $1 billion somewhere else could generate at least $1.001 billion in a year. The economic benefits of such investments would far outweigh the uncertain and often intangible benefits of military expenditure.

Furthermore, the rapid pace of technological advancements continuously undermines the value of expensive military hardware. A sophisticated weapon system that costs billions of dollars to develop and deploy could become obsolete within a few years due to technological breakthroughs or the emergence of countermeasures. This constant obsolescence cycle necessitates continuous investment in research and development, further straining national budgets.

In contrast, investments in human capital, research and development, and infrastructure yield long-term economic benefits and enhance a nation's competitiveness. A highly skilled and educated workforce and a robust research and development ecosystem can drive innovation, create new industries, and generate sustainable economic growth.

Furthermore, diplomatic and economic tools, such as trade agreements, sanctions, and foreign aid, can be far more effective in achieving geopolitical objectives than military force. In an increasingly interconnected world, where economic interdependence is the norm, military force often results in unintended consequences and can damage long-term relationships.

The Price of Militarisation

The economic burden of maintaining a large standing army, developing sophisticated weaponry, and engaging in an arms race is staggering. Consider the following examples:

• A single fighter aircraft can cost upwards of $800 million.

• A defence deal can quickly run into hundreds of billions of dollars.

While these technological marvels may be impressive feats of engineering, their utility in addressing the complex challenges of the 21st century is questionable. Can a fighter aircraft be a productive asset for a typical household? Can the vast sums of money spent on defence deals be better utilised to address pressing social and economic issues?

The Power of Politics

If a country wishes to exert influence over another, there are far more effective and cost-efficient methods than resorting to military force. One such method is political manipulation. By influencing the opposition party of the target country, a nation can achieve its objectives without firing a single bullet.

History is replete with examples of how political intrigue, espionage, and propaganda have been used to destabilise governments, foment unrest, and achieve geopolitical goals. The human propensity for greed and lust for power makes such manipulation all too easy. This manipulation is not limited to the pages of history books; the present is undoubtedly a product of such historical machinations, and the cycle seems never-ending.

The methods used to achieve these goals are as varied as the goals themselves. Espionage can involve anything from stealing state secrets to spreading disinformation. Propaganda can sway public opinion, incite hatred, or justify aggression. Political intrigue can include anything from bribery and blackmail to coups and assassinations.

These methods are often combined, creating a web of deceit and manipulation that can be difficult to unravel. The human element is always a factor; those who seek to control others can exploit greed, ambition, and fear.

The construction of the Great Wall of China exemplifies the futility of relying solely on physical defences. While intended to prevent invaders, it was ultimately breached not by force but by the corruption of the human guards stationed at its gates. This illustrates a fundamental truth: the strength of any defence ultimately rests on the integrity and vigilance of those who uphold it.

In the modern era, manipulation methods have become even more sophisticated. The rise of technology has created new opportunities for espionage, propaganda, and political intrigue. Cyberattacks, social media manipulation, and artificial intelligence are just a few of the tools that can be used to destabilise governments and achieve geopolitical goals.

The challenges of the 21st century require a multi-faceted approach. While physical defences and military strength remain essential, they must be complemented by strategies that address the root causes of conflict. This includes promoting good governance, combating corruption, and addressing social and economic inequalities.

Ultimately, lasting peace and security hinge on recognising the interconnectedness of the global community. By working together to address the challenges of the modern era, we can create a more just, equitable, and secure world for all.

The Way Forward

In the contemporary era, the most prudent course of action is to reduce taxpayers' money allocated to defence expenditures. The significant funds allocated to military hardware and personnel could be reallocated to more beneficial and socially responsible initiatives. By investing in education, healthcare, infrastructure, and sustainable development, nations can foster a more secure and prosperous future for their citizens. Pursuing peace and prosperity through cooperation and diplomacy is a far more enlightened and sustainable strategy than the antiquated and counterproductive reliance on military might.

While advocating for reducing defence expenditure, it is essential to recognise the significant technological advancements achieved in the military sector. When applied to peaceful civilian use, these advancements can have a transformative impact on society. The potential applications of military technology in the civilian sphere are vast and diverse, ranging from mundane applications to cutting-edge technologies such as information technology, satellite systems, nuclear energy, and even medical advancements.

For instance, advancements in military communication systems can be adapted to enhance civilian telecommunication networks, improving connectivity and access to information for individuals and businesses. Similarly, satellite technology developed for military surveillance and reconnaissance can be utilised for environmental monitoring, disaster management, and urban planning, leading to more sustainable and resilient communities. Furthermore, research and development in nuclear energy, initially driven by military applications, can be harnessed to meet the world's growing energy demands while reducing reliance on fossil fuels and mitigating climate change.

In the medical field, innovations in military medicine, such as trauma care, prosthetics, and regenerative medicine, can be translated into life-saving treatments and therapies for civilians. The development of portable medical devices and telemedicine technologies, initially designed for battlefield use, can improve healthcare access and delivery in remote and underserved areas.

By redirecting funds from defence expenditure to these and other socially beneficial military technology applications, a more equitable and prosperous society can be fostered. By prioritising investments in human capital, sustainable development, and technological innovation, nations can create a more secure and peaceful world for future generations.

Pursuing military supremacy through exorbitant defence expenditure is a misguided strategy in the modern era. The dynamics of power have shifted, with economic and political influence now playing a more significant role in shaping geopolitical outcomes. Investing in human capital, research and development, and infrastructure while leveraging diplomatic and economic tools is a far more sustainable and practical approach to achieving national security and prosperity. Prioritising long-term investments in these areas is essential for ensuring continued success.

Also Read:

The Illusion of Unchallenged Power: How Asymmetric Warfare Disrupted the Western Strategic Order

U.S. vs. Iran: Could Trump’s Next Strike Ignite an Unwinnable War in the Persian Gulf?

The Mirage of Democracy: Lebanon, Israel, and the West’s Lost Ideals

✒️ Hezbollah’s demand for Israeli withdrawal exposes the collapse of sovereignty, law, and democratic pretences.

🌐 In June 2026, Hezbollah’s Naim Qassem demanded Israel’s complete withdrawal from Lebanon, rejecting buffer zones and partial measures. His speech, delivered after a fragile ceasefire and amid US–Iran tensions, highlights the erosion of international law, the rise of resistance narratives, and the disillusionment with Western ideals of democracy and human rights.

On the borderlands of Lebanon and Israel, sovereignty and security collide — the collapse of ideals in our remarkable times.

🌍 A Statement That Echoes Beyond Beirut

On June 23, 2026, Hezbollah’s deputy leader, Naim Qassem, stood before a crowd in Beirut and declared that Israel must withdraw from all Lebanese territory “according to a timetable.” His words reverberated far beyond Lebanon’s borders. They were not merely a local demand but a reminder of the fragility of international law, the contested nature of sovereignty, and the collapse of Western pretences of democracy.

The timing was deliberate. Just days earlier, a fragile ceasefire had been brokered after clashes between Israel and Hezbollah left more than 4,100 Lebanese dead and 12,000 wounded since March 2026, according to humanitarian monitors. Israel, too, has suffered casualties, with over 1,200 civilians killed and 3,500 injured in rocket attacks and cross‑border raids. These figures underscore the human cost of a conflict that refuses to fade.

---

⚔️ Historical Parallels: Echoes of Withdrawal and Collapse

Qassem’s demand recalls the Israeli withdrawal of May 2000, when, after eighteen years of occupation, Israel pulled back from southern Lebanon. Hezbollah claimed victory, cementing its legitimacy as the “resistance.” That moment became a cornerstone of its narrative: a militia forcing a regional power to retreat.

But the parallels extend further. The erosion of international law today mirrors the League of Nations’ collapse in the 1930s, when aggression by Italy in Ethiopia and Japan in Manchuria went unchecked. Just as Rome’s republic gave way to empire, today’s democracies risk becoming hollow shells, invoking ideals while practising occupation, surveillance, and suppression.

---

🇮🇱 Israel’s Internal Fracture: Democracy in Protest

Inside Israel, the war has ignited a domestic crisis. In Tel Aviv, Haifa, and Jerusalem, tens of thousands have taken to the streets to denounce Prime Minister Netanyahu’s government. Protesters accuse the state of labelling dissenters as “terrorists,” a chilling echo of authoritarian regimes.

The protests are not isolated. They are part of a broader wave of disillusionment across democracies. Citizens see governments invoking “security” to justify surveillance, detention, and suppression. In Israel, the protests are particularly poignant: a democracy founded on the promise of refuge now branding its own citizens as enemies for demanding peace.

---

🛡️ Sovereignty vs. Security: The Core Contradiction

Israel insists its presence in Lebanon is defensive, citing Hezbollah’s arsenal of over 150,000 rockets capable of striking deep into Israeli territory. Hezbollah counters that occupation is aggression, not defence.

This clash embodies the contradiction at the heart of modern geopolitics: sovereignty versus security. International law demands withdrawal, yet Israel invokes Article 51 of the UN Charter to justify its actions. The Lebanese Army, under‑resourced and politically constrained, is caught in the middle, unable to assert full control south of the Litani River.

---

📉 The Collapse of Ideals: A Thoughtful Note

We are living in remarkable times. The ideals once championed by the West now lie in ruins. Human rights and international law are cloaked in deception, invoked selectively and discarded when inconvenient. Our supposed heroes of democracy engage in attacks, bombings, piracy, and complicity in genocide. They brand their own citizens as terrorists for protesting, abduct individuals without due process, and silently preside over the erosion of the very laws they claim to uphold. What have we permitted to happen in the name of democracy?

---

🔮 Conclusion: A Fragile Future

Hezbollah’s demand is more than a tactical manoeuvre; it is a mirror held up to the world. Lebanon’s sovereignty, Israel’s security fears, Iran’s resilience, and America’s waning credibility converge in this moment. The fragile ceasefire may collapse, but the deeper collapse is already underway: the collapse of faith in democracy, law, and the ideals that once promised a just world.

The protests in Israel, the casualties in Lebanon, and the rhetoric from Hezbollah all point to a future where sovereignty is contested, democracy is hollowed out, and international law is eroded. The question is not whether Israel will withdraw, but whether the world can reclaim the ideals it has lost.

The Decline of American Power in the Gulf: From Beirut to Hormuz

Analysing the Evolving Dynamics of U.S.-Iran Relations and Regional Influence

The intricate dynamics of U.S. involvement in the Gulf region have evolved significantly over the decades, revealing a narrative marked by ambition, challenges, and retreat. The recent collapse of the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the United States and Iran serves as a stark illustration of this decline, echoing pivotal moments such as the tragic withdrawal from Beirut in 1983 and the tumultuous invasion of Iraq in 2003. As geopolitical tensions escalate and regional players recalibrate their alliances, the fragile promises made by American leadership highlight the shifting sands of power in the Gulf, raising critical questions about the U.S.'s future role in this strategically vital area.

A tense diplomatic moment: The US-Iran agreement offers a pathway

You can trace how the collapse of the U.S.–Iran MoU mirrors the long arc of American decline in the Gulf — from Beirut in 1983 to Iraq in 2003, and now Hormuz in 2026:

📜 The MoU’s Fragile Promise

The June 18, 2026, MoU between Washington and Tehran was hailed as a breakthrough — a ceasefire framework, a toll‑free Hormuz passage, and a chance to stabilise the Gulf. Yet within days, Israel’s defiance in Lebanon and America’s contradictions exposed its fragility. Iran, restrained but resolute, now weighs withdrawal. The MoU stands as a paper promise, hollowed by realities on the ground.

⚔️ Beirut, 1983 — The First Fracture

In October 1983, suicide bombers struck U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, killing 241 servicemen. America’s swift withdrawal revealed a truth: the U.S. could not sustain its presence when local hostility outweighed its alliances. That retreat foreshadowed the limits of American power in the Middle East — a precedent now echoed as GCC states refuse to host U.S. logistics in 2026.

The Beirut withdrawal became the first crack in the myth of U.S. invincibility.

🏜️ Iraq, 2003 — The False Dawn

The invasion of Iraq was meant to cement U.S. dominance. Instead, it unleashed chaos, drained resources, and eroded credibility. By dismantling Iraq’s state, Washington created vacuums filled by Iran’s proxies. The war exposed America’s inability to rebuild what it destroyed, a lesson now resurfacing as Iran dictates terms in Hormuz while U.S. warships hesitate to approach.

The Iraq War became the pivot from dominance to decline.

---

🇮🇱 Israel’s Defiance, 2026

Israel’s strikes in Lebanon, despite MoU clauses, highlight Washington’s impotence. Trump’s public calls for restraint are contradicted by continued weapons shipments. Senators influenced by Israeli lobbying ensure U.S. policy remains captive. Iran retaliates with precision strikes, exposing Israeli defences as porous. Even elite Sayeret Matkal operators fall victim to loitering munitions.

The U.S. cannot restrain its ally, nor protect it — a replay of past failures, now magnified.

🌍 GCC’s Rejection

Saudi Arabia’s refusal to grant Trump airspace access, the UAE’s exit from OPEC, and Trump’s remarks about Mecca alienated the Gulf. Once hosts of U.S. logistics, GCC states now pivot toward Russia and China. The Carter Doctrine’s promise — that America would secure Gulf oil — lies in tatters.

GCC realignment marks the end of U.S. logistical dominance.

⚡ Energy & Military Exhaustion

• Energy Shock: Iran’s threats to close Hormuz spike oil prices, destabilising global markets.
• Military Attrition: U.S. and Israeli munitions are depleted, while Iran holds back its full arsenal.
• Strategic Weakness: Warships avoid close patrols, exposing the gap between rhetoric and reality.

🕊️ Diplomatic Fallout

The Swiss talks, once envisioned as a grand signing, are now downgraded ceremonies overshadowed by threats of withdrawal. Pakistan mediates, but Iran’s leverage grows. Washington’s credibility shrinks. The MoU, like past accords, risks collapse not from external sabotage but from America’s inability to enforce its own terms.

Diplomatic fallout mirrors the unravelling of past U.S. initiatives.

📖 Epilogue: The Long Arc of Decline

From Beirut’s retreat to Iraq’s quagmire, from GCC rejection to Hormuz brinkmanship, the story is consistent: America enters the Gulf with promises of dominance, but exits weakened, exposed, and dependent on allies it cannot control.

The MoU’s collapse is not an isolated failure — it is the latest chapter in a serialised decline. Iran, Russia, and China now shape the Gulf’s future, while the U.S. stands as a distant power, rhetorically assertive but practically sidelined.

The 108-Day Mirage: The Collapse of American Hubris in the Middle East

How the promise of "geopolitical surgery" devolved into a strategic retreat, and what this implies for the future of global power.

History is often written by the victors, but the most profound chapters are those that document the quiet, systemic crumbling of an era. We are currently living through one such chapter. It has been 108 days since the world was told that "maximum pressure" would reshape the Middle East—a narrative that promised regime change, the crushing of military backbones, and the restoration of a specific, unipolar order.

Today, that narrative is not just silent; it is inverted.

A visual representation of the shifting power dynamics in the Middle East, highlighting the transition from military dominance to economic resilience in shaping the future of global diplomacy.

The Middle East Crisis of 2026 will be remembered not for the strength displayed by the established powers but for the profound exposure of their limitations. What we are witnessing is an existential reckoning in which the arrogance of "geopolitical surgery" has met the stubborn reality of a multipolar, asymmetric world.

The Military Reality: When Superiority Becomes a Liability

The Iran War was launched on the assumption that conventional, technological, and financial superiority would translate into a swift, surgical outcome. The doctrine was simple: overwhelm the adversary with the sheer weight of a $38.5 trillion economy and the most advanced air force in history.

The ground reality tells a different story. According to documented operational losses, the United States has seen the destruction of at least 42 aircraft, including F-15E Strike Eagles, an A-10 Thunderbolt II, and the symbolic loss of a B-52 Stratofortress in a June 15 crash. Simultaneously, Israel—once considered the region's technological vanguard—saw its fleet of Hermes and Heron drones systematically picked off, exposing a vulnerability to Iranian air defences that had previously been dismissed as academic.

This was not a failure of equipment; it was a failure of dogma. The U.S. and its allies operated on the belief that a determined adversary could be forced into submission through attrition. Instead, they discovered that an asymmetric force—armed with cheap drones, mobile missiles, and a high tolerance for economic hardship—could inflict disproportionate damage.

Also Read: Iran War Impact

The Diplomatic Pivot: From "Regime Change" to "Begging"

The most striking shift occurred in the diplomatic theatre. The Iran Deal (or the "Memorandum of Understanding") is perhaps the most potent symbol of this reversal.

Washington’s initial objectives were maximalist: destroy Iran’s nuclear capabilities and break its military backbone. Yet, the current trajectory is defined by the lifting of sanctions and the unfreezing of assets—a dramatic pivot that critics on both sides of the aisle describe as a total capitulation.

When a superpower—which spent years threatening to destroy its adversary—moves to a posture of bargaining for stability, it signals more than a tactical shift. It signals that the "executioner" has been reduced to an "oil beggar." The irony is palpable: the very sanctions intended to suffocate the Iranian economy have instead acted as a catalyst for Iran to spearhead a system of dedollarization. By selectively controlling the Strait of Hormuz—the chokepoint for nearly 20% of global oil trade—and facilitating trade with nations like China and India outside the dollar system, Iran has successfully weaponised the global supply chain against its primary aggressor.

The evolving power dynamics in the Middle East highlight the shift from military strength to economic resilience as a key determinant in future diplomacy.

Also Read: Trump's Peace Claim

The Multipolar Dawn

The philosophical weight of this moment lies in the realisation that the "American Century" is not ending with a bang, but with the quiet exhaustion of its strategic credit.

The fiscal strain is undeniable. With the U.S. national debt exceeding $38.5 trillion, the sustainability of a global military footprint is no longer a matter of policy; it is a matter of arithmetic. The European allies, once staunch supporters, are increasingly decoupling from the U.S. orbit, pursuing "strategic autonomy" as they recognise that NATO’s defensive charter is being stretched to its breaking point.

Meanwhile, the rise of the BRICS nations and their focus on trade, currency independence, and resource-backed stability is no longer theoretical. We are witnessing the emergence of a multipolar order where the currency of influence is shifting from brute military force to economic resilience and diplomatic leverage.

The Reckoning

The Middle East is not just a theatre of war; it is a mirror. It reflects a world that is "resolutely moving on." The hubris of the 108-day period has left the U.S. and its regional partners isolated, their security guarantees exposed as hollow, and their rhetoric mocked by a Global South that no longer fears their shadow.

We are left with a sobering conclusion: Hegemony is not a right; it is a lease, and that lease is expiring. As the dust settles on this conflict, the world is not looking for a new master but for a new balance. The "geopolitical surgery" failed not because the doctors lacked the tools, but because the patient refused to be anaesthetised.

Also Read: Ceasefire Illusions

#IranWar, #IranDeal, #MiddleEastCrisis, #Geopolitics, #Dedollarization, #MultipolarWorld

Unconquerable Iran and America’s Retreat

Unconquerable Iran and America’s Retreat: A War That Redefined Power in the Gulf and Beyond

Read the full essay on Medium

The Iran War was not just a military confrontation—it was a mirror held up to the empire. America, long accustomed to projecting power across oceans, discovered the limits of its reach. Iran, by contrast, reaffirmed its historic identity as unconquerable—a nation whose geography, culture, and resilience have defied every invader from Alexander to modern superpowers.

The US could not capture Iran

The essay traces this civilizational continuity: how Iran’s endurance exposed America’s overstretch, how the Gulf’s reconstruction capital now flows eastward to Beijing, and how Washington’s entanglement with Israeli interests turned strategic ambition into self‑inflicted decline.

As the U.S. withdraws from the Persian Gulf and Eurasia, the world witnesses a reversal of centuries—the magnet of wealth and technology shifting eastward, echoing the long arc of history described in China’s Rising Economic Influence.

This is not a story of defeat alone, but of transformation: the end of garrisons and the beginning of diplomacy, the fading of empire and the rise of resilience.

Strategic Analysis of Operation Project Freedom: A Failed Naval Endeavour

Examining the Consequences of U.S. Military Decisions in the Middle East

A strategic analysis of the failed Operation Project Freedom, highlighting the implications of U.S. military actions in the Middle East, including rising tensions with Iran, the impact on regional alliances, and the challenges to U.S. national security. Explore the multifaceted consequences of recent events and their significance for future U.S. foreign policy.

The New York Times recently confirmed that no deal with Iran was forthcoming. In response, Trump launched a naval operation to reopen the Strait of Hormuz on May 4-5, 2026, and subsequently requested access for U.S. aircraft to Saudi Arabian airspace and bases. However, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman refused his request, and the phone call between Trump and MBS failed to resolve the disagreement. The Saudi assessment deemed the operation "not well thought-out" and expressed concerns about the risk of escalating tensions with Iran.

The Saudi assessment deemed the operation "not well thought-out" and expressed concerns about escalating tensions with Iran, highlighting how Saudi Arabia's refusal to grant military access directly undermines U.S. regional influence and complicates strategic options.

If Saudi Arabia refuses to grant Trump's requests, other Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries are likely to follow suit. The U.S. will then have no choice but to withdraw from the Middle East.

South Korea also declined to join the coalition, leaving 26 ships stranded. The U.S. deployed Dark Eagle hypersonic missiles as a form of psychological pressure, though they cost $41 million each and had never been tested against hardened targets. War veterans have commented, "They don't work."

The operation encountered phantom targets, leading to chaos in the U.S. Navy, which panicked and mistakenly fired upon civilian vessels. Iran reportedly struck a U.S. destroyer, although the U.S. government denied the incident. These operational failures significantly increase risks to national security and undermine U.S. strategic credibility, effectively closing the Strait of Hormuz.

The phrase "The Art of the Deal" is increasingly seen as "The Art of the Kneel," Raising concerns about U.S. resilience and prompting the audience to feel cautious about strategic stability.

Even if Trump had given an order—an assumption many might make—military commanders were unlikely to follow it. No commander would want to sail into a suicide mission, regardless of orders. Iran has emerged as the new leader in the Middle East; other countries will either adhere to Tehran's directives or face devastating consequences.

This conflict can be framed as a struggle between Jews and Muslims, and many believe that the Jews are destined to lose, emphasising the importance of U.S. strategic positioning to prevent such outcomes and making the audience feel the gravity of the situation.

 

Moreover, the U.S. military is unable to defend the continental United States if powers like Russia or China decide to attack.

Constituents must communicate with their members of Congress to ensure that Section 224 is not included in H.R. 8800 as part of the FY 2027 NDAA. This provision would integrate Israel's military with the U.S. military. Israel's financial aid package, amounting to roughly $3.8 billion annually, is set to expire in 2028. If Congress passes this bill with Section 224, the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) would become part of the U.S. military structure, giving Israel access to American resources. Many in the U.S. wish to halt this progression, with little time left to act. The military markup proposal of up to $1.15 trillion will be discussed in June, with Congress required to finalise the NDAA by December 2026.

Additional indicators of the operational failure include:

- The resignations of Tulsi Gabbard, Kent, and others.

- The removal of several military generals.

- Public hearings where figures like Pete Hegseth and Trump appeared to struggle with their statements.

- Inconsistencies in statements from Trump and his aides.

- The Pentagon's failure to disclose real casualty figures, initially denying losses, downplaying them later, and ultimately being forced to acknowledge the truth due to emerging evidence.

The main point is that if the U.S. were as powerful as it claims, it would not have been forced to resort to such tactics. This demonstrates a clear sign of being beaten but unwilling to accept defeat.

Financially, the U.S. has relied on the petrodollar for decades, but that foundation has been cracked, urging the audience to feel the weight of impending economic decline and the need for action.

Regarding defence spending, the U.S. must consider whether it can produce effective weaponry given its current economic situation. While infrastructure exists, working capital remains essential. Additionally, following its performance in the Iran conflict, other countries are hesitant to purchase arms from the U.S., leading to a lack of advance payments and sales revenue. Compounding this issue is the fact that China may not readily supply necessary raw materials, forcing the U.S. to contemplate selling weapon-grade plutonium on the open market to generate funds.

Iran has effectively devastated the U.S., and Israel has also suffered in the process. The primary concern should be for the U.S. to stabilise its own situation before addressing broader geopolitical issues.

Also read:

Damned Allies, Shattered Dreams: Israel and America in Decline